![]()
We know that the fire started shortly after Napoleon entered Moscow, but who exactly started it is rather unclear. Among our historians, three versions are considered plausible: a deliberate arson by the retreating Russian forces, a spontaneous act of sabotage by local guerrilla resistance fighters and a bona fide regular fire that was started by some careless French soldiers and spread due to chaos. It's even possible that all three of the above happened more or less simultaneously, since there are some reports that indicate that there were several smaller fires at first that eventually merged together into one huge inferno.
If it's stupid and it works...
edited 4th May '16 8:35:11 PM by KnitTie
It could have been as simple as someone leaving a small fire to keep warm lit and unattended thinking what could go wrong or a candle still burning that fell over onto something flammable. Stranger things have happened. Though I am amused by the thought of all three at once.
Who watches the watchmen?I think the Russians are just impressed by anyone who was that successful at a land invasion of Russia.
I mean, hell, the British burned Washington, D.C., and look what high regard the US holds their troops in. Also helps that it was Washington, D.C. that they set fire to and not a city anyone particularly likes.
The US saw the Filipino soldier first hand quite early in the 20th Century. Then during World War II the reputation was really reinforced (despite the overall defeat by 1942), especially since the insurgency was one of the most active and in-depth. Then the Korean War happened, showing that despite being a foreign land, they can truly punch beyond their weight. Even the Brits and Aussies got to see that first hand.
Much more recent would be when the surrounded Filipino UN peacekeepers were able to hold their ground and fight their way out. Their commander through the Philippine chain of command (rather than the UN) was right: why the hell would peacekeepers surrender to the Syrians and give them their guns...when that's what they really want? Yet the now disarmed peacekeepers would still be hostages after doing so...
Technically speaking neither the Filipino general nor the Indian general assigned to the peacekeeping force followed the rules. The Filipino commander overruled the UN (by giving different orders), while the Indian general gave an order to surrender and be disarmed, which the UN doesn't want to happen anymore after UN peacekeepers did that in Rwanda.
I am yet to see a single soldier say: I would like to have second deployment as an UN peacekeeper.
Everyone I met coming back from Haiti said they simply hated the stupidly strict Ro E and had to see things like women being raped in the open, seeing executions and the looting of international aid by crime lords. Yet they couldn't do jack shit because they weren't being fired upon or it didn't happen inside an UN compound.
UN military actions tend to be very useless.
◊
CAP Transition to the Airman Battle Uniform (ABU)
What's most entertaining about this is watching all the confusion on /r/airforce about the Civil Air Patrol and why they get to wear Air Force uniforms, and all the confusion on /r/civilairpatrol for when and how exactly they'll be wearing these uniforms (including which bits or pieces of the BD Us they can recycle and whether or not they wear the same patches and name tapes).
It's that time of the week again, when I report that somehow, yet again, the SyAA managed to lose some territory and enough weapons to arm a small country to IS.
Shaer oil fields this time,
third time in the war it changed hands.
While the concentration of artillery this time around was inferior to the previous defenders, which could call on 122mm 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzers and 122mm BM-21 Grad MRLs, it still boasted up to nine 122mm D-30 howitzers and 130mm M-46 field guns, two of which have been visually confirmed by footage of Shaer. While these howitzers and field guns thus could prove a valuable asset in the hands of the defenders, one of the two 122mm D-30 howitzers seen in Islamic State released footage was simply dumped into a corner of its base. In fact, both howitzers were in travel mode, and for one gun this likely indicates that is was left untouched after its arrival at Shaer. The same applied for the single 57mm AZP S-60, also in travel position with its associated ammuntion neatly packed behind the anti-aircraft gun.
Also in the bag this time? As many as twenty tanks, T-55s and T-62s. I'm starting to suspect Assad is doing this on purpose, so he could turn around and demand T-90s as replacements from Moscow.
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.And thus does Syria become the first non-Russian operator of Armatas.
Followed shortly by IS.
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.In other words you haven't met a Filipino peacekeeper. They'd choose the second deployment. Especially since the alternative would be their actual pay from the Army (which is considerably lower than the UN's), and still the equally dangerous task of fighting insurgents in your own country. Their family also gets more when they do die as peacekeepers rather than "just" soldiers.
edited 6th May '16 9:56:59 AM by entropy13
If the CIA have their own paramilitary unit (SAG), why use the Navy SEA Ls to hunt down Bin Laden three years ago?
Didn't the CIA have some guys on site who cut the power or something? If that's the CIA's paramilitary then that's your answer, the CIA guys do sabotage, they're trained to break thing quietly, not take down an armed and defended compound.
The CIA don't take targets that shoot back, if it shoots back you send in the military.
Edit: Yeah according to our page on special forces SOG cut the power and got away, so I suspect it's a stuff that doesn't shoot back thing, if an actual firefight is happening then you want soilders, preferably special forces.
edited 6th May '16 4:45:44 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Still better than the Infinite Warfare trailer.
I am wondering how DICE will fuck this up, like they did with BF 4 and each patch that forced you to relearn the game.
Inter arma enim silent legesI don't see what the problem with a WWI FPS is to begin with. Other then peoples often flawed view of the war tends to fixate on narrow stereotypes of the war I see nothing wrong it. Provided they avoided grey/brown always rainy muddy trench meme and actually show the large variety of areas the war was fought on it could be interesting.
As for the whole balancing and patching that seems to be a perpetual well, that is always a the bloody sticky point with DICE games isn't it.
edited 6th May '16 7:07:58 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?

I strongly recall reading that it was the Russians themselves who set Moscow afire in the aftermath of Borodino as a final act of defiance, and that Napoleon entered the ruins with a grudging respect for a nation willing to torch its own capital to spite him.